Jet fuel can't melt steel. (But it sure can weaken it)

[Ian W]

7 minutes ago, mudslag said:

 

No tower anywhere in the world was hit in the manner that the WTC ones were, your contention is moot. There is only one other case of something even remotely happening and even then it still didn't cause even close to the same amount of damage that happened on 9/11. That was a B-25 striking Empire State Building in 1945. It wasn't flying at full speed, it didn't damage the main support structure of the building, it wasn't fully loaded with fuel and the fires didn't rage out of control like it did in WTC. 

 

Again you keep saying the steel beams melted but wasn't the case in WTC, they were weakened, which is all that was needed for the upper floors weight to not be supported. Hence the upper floors came down causing the pancaking effect on the rest of the building. Sorry but your argument has failed to live up to reality. 

Emphasis mine.
For some reason, those who make these claims believe that steel melting is the only way that the structures could have collapsed.

[mudslag]

2 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

 

 

 

 

Ah Mr. Jones, stick the title Professor and what ever comes out of his mouth must be true. You do realize this guy is a physicist right? He's not a  structural engineer and was put on leave by the Brigham Young University for his outlandish claims regarding 9/11. He even wrote a paper on the subject that he later retracted due to poor supporting evidence, it failed peer review. 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by mudslag

[mudslag]

3 minutes ago, Ian W said:

Emphasis mine.
For some reason, those who make these claims believe that steel melting is the only way that the structures could have collapsed.

 

They also seem to think that because something melted in a fire, it could only have been structural beams, ignoring the building was a fully equipped 110 story office building full of a half a million tons of material. 

[HawkMan]

4 hours ago, monkeylove said:

My argument is not based on "armchair analysis" but common sense: the only way to determine whether or not 150 (or is it 236?) pieces are "acceptable" is to compare them to the others.

 

So you argue that you're not an "armchair analyst" by describing the very defintion of armchair analysis. This is physics, not common sense, common sense doesn't apply here. 

 

Also you're misrepresenting what happened. They looked through the wreckage looking at all the structural steel to find the important pieces they needed that would tell them what happened. Then they analyzed that, since the steel above and below would be less than useless to them, thoguh I'm sure they had a few pieces from there to for comparison and as control. since you know, science and physics.  It's what these people do, and they know a damn lot more about it than anyone on this forum. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

Steel melts at like 2,000-2,500 degrees and there is NO way jet fuel can reach that temperature

you're thinking of iron. 

Quote

. Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/structural-failure-of-steel-due-to-heat.151160/

Besides that, like many have pointed out, it doesn't need to melt, the warmer a material gets including metal the softer it gets. long before melting. the steel didnt't melt it merely got to soft to support the weight. This was made possible by the fact that the steel in the building didn't have the protective "foam" that's supposed to insulate it against fire and the fact it was effing jet fuel.

 

as far as how hot it got in there. First this was a hollow skyscraper. that means it has a central shaft designed to spread heat and air. incidentall in a fire as catastropic as this it will also work in another way. It makes an extremely effective natural convexion furnace. The Fire heats the air, the hot air races, sucking up new fresh air fro the bottom through the built in wents at the bottom of the tower, this causes the fire to burn hotter, making more air frise faster, pulling in more fresh air. and voila. hellishly hot furnace that can melt steel. 

 

If you understand fire, furnace and convexion, it's not a hard concept to understand and see how hot this gets. just like a fan into a coal fire makes steel red hot and pliable 

[chrisj1968]

9 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

It kind of figures that you'd believe this nonsensical dribble. After all, you've shown a proclivity for believing in fairy tales.

 

take a look at the many burning towers around the world... NO TOWER EVER, fell due to heat or fire.. who believes the fable now? This tower never fell...  gotta open your eyes and think for yourself and not let the establishment media feed you what's going on. based upon YOUR theory or belief.. this tower would have fallen, completely engulfed.. yet it did NOT.  so thermite/thermate(with sulfur) seems to be more and more truth.

 

 

 

 

[FloatingFatMan]

1 minute ago, chrisj1968 said:

take a look at the many burning towers around the world... NO TOWER EVER, fell due to heat or fire.. who believes the fable now? This tower never fell...  gotta open your eyes and think for yourself and not let the establishment media feed you what's going on. based upon YOUR theory or belief.. this tower would have fallen, completely engulfed.. yet it did NOT.  so thermite/thermate(with sulfur) seems to be more and more truth.

 

*sigh* Okay, right... no tower EVER... Riiiight.

 

I asked for proof, not further uncorroborated claims pulled out of thin air.  Where's your proof?  I've expounded no theories or stated any beliefs of my own, I've merely asked you to prove your assertion.  If you can't do that, then it's better not to make any claims of fact at all and just say it's your personal belief.

 

[BobSlob]

The government killed 3000+ Civilians for no reason to hide their true intentions... but the 2-3 guys in this thread that figured it out, they're letting you live. Sounds plausible!

 

 

[Emn1ty]

50 minutes ago, chrisj1968 said:

take a look at the many burning towers around the world... NO TOWER EVER, fell due to heat or fire.. who believes the fable now? This tower never fell...  gotta open your eyes and think for yourself and not let the establishment media feed you what's going on. based upon YOUR theory or belief.. this tower would have fallen, completely engulfed.. yet it did NOT.  so thermite/thermate(with sulfur) seems to be more and more truth.

 

 

 

 

Considering these two buildings are nothing alike, the comparison is moot. Also, this structure has no structural compromise outside of whatever the fire is doing. Fly a plane into it, take out some of its support structure and then we can see if the remaining heated support beams hold the weight.

The problem with "no tower ever" is that also "no tower ever" has sustained the level of or type of damage the WTC sustained in concert with a fire. Sure, the fire didn't bring the building down on its own but the planes certainly played a part in that. This is probably why this conspiracy ring focuses only on the fire, because acknowledging that the planes compromised the structure before the fires finished the job puts a gigantic hole in their argument. You can't cherry pick pieces of the whole and only argue about that in an isolated scenario. The fire was not isolated, it was accompanied by a very large aircraft flying at a high speed directly into the structure.

Unless you can demonstrate another case of the same kind of event happening and no structural damage befalling the building? Good luck finding one, btw.

[Richard Burtov]

Ah, Americans and their love of conspiracy theories...

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/08/why-americans-love-conspiracies-041515

[Astra.Xtreme]

14 hours ago, trag3dy said:

FWIW that's not actually the definition of insanity. I realize this is off topic but it bugs me that this has become a thing people keep repeating since Far Cry 3.

 

Also FWIW, examining something over and over and looking for different results is scientific theory. Not that I agree with monkeylove that you couldn't make a sufficient conclusion from 150 different pieces of steel.

I think most people understand that the saying originated from Einstein, and it was basically a tongue-in-cheek statement.

The point being that you don't need to observe something 100% in order to make an accurate conclusion.

Just like you don't need to poll 100% of a population to get an accurate demographic.  It's just a statistics thing.

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, chrisj1968 said:

take a look at the many burning towers around the world... NO TOWER EVER, fell due to heat or fire.. who believes the fable now? This tower never fell...  gotta open your eyes and think for yourself and not let the establishment media feed you what's going on. based upon YOUR theory or belief.. this tower would have fallen, completely engulfed.. yet it did NOT.  so thermite/thermate(with sulfur) seems to be more and more truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Did any of those towers

 

1: burn with effin jet fuel

2: burn at the core creating a closed in convexion furnace(hint: the answer is no)

3: not have their exposed steel covered with flame and heat inhibiting foam

4: Have a giant damn commercial jet crash through the tower creating another went hole for the convexion furnace and exposing and weakening more steel

 

You're allowed to think for yourself as well. 

[Michael Scrip]

The WTC towers had a unique design.  Since they had an open floorplan... the outer skin was just as important for supporting the structure as the internal core.

 

There were 59 steel columns on each face of the tower that made up the outer skin.  And again... they were part of the support mechanism.

 

Well... I saw a giant airplane punch a HOLE in the outer skin. Two holes actually... on entry and exit.  So any support that the outer skin was providing above the points of impact was gone.  The floor trusses were also attached to the outer skin... but some floors become un-attached when the aforementioned holes were punched in the sides of the buildings.  And the airplane impacts undoubtedly caused similar damage to the internal core too.

 

In short... there were plenty of steel supports that were no longer there and no longer supporting the structure above it. I'd call that "missing" steel.

 

Then add to that the remaining "weakened" steel due to fire.  As has been said... it didn't melt... but it certainly wasn't as strong as when they erected the towers.

 

So with the "missing" steel... and the "weakened" steel... it really doesn't surprise me that they didn't remain standing.

[monkeylove]

On 3/8/2016 at 10:48 AM, Astra.Xtreme said:

Errr... if you find a small piece of burned paper in a fire place, does it mean that the government covered up some conspiracy?  Uh no, it means that somebody threw some paper in the fire.  Just because only a small fragment remained, doesn't make it any less true that it was thrown in the fire.  That's just elementary logic...

 

Examining something over and over, and hoping for different results, is the definition of insanity.

The problem is that we're not looking at one small piece but much of physical evidence destroyed hastily and for no valid reason.

 

And it's not examining something repeatedly but not examining much of the evidence at all.

 

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/8/2016 at 11:04 AM, trag3dy said:

FWIW that's not actually the definition of insanity. I realize this is off topic but it bugs me that this has become a thing people keep repeating since Far Cry 3.

 

Also FWIW, examining something over and over and looking for different results is scientific theory. Not that I agree with monkeylove that you couldn't make a sufficient conclusion from 150 different pieces of steel.

One can only make such a conclusion from so many pieces by making sure that they are sufficient in making that conclusions. And that means gathering and examining as much evidence as possible. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

 

[trag3dy]

6 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

One can only make such a conclusion from so many pieces by making sure that they are sufficient in making that conclusions. And that means gathering and examining as much evidence as possible. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

 

Okay.

 

At what point would you consider it enough? Also take into consideration that these people are supposed to be experts and probably know a little bit more about what they are doing than you think you do.

[mudslag]

8 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

The problem is that we're not looking at one small piece but much of physical evidence destroyed hastily and for no valid reason.

 

And it's not examining something repeatedly but not examining much of the evidence at all.

 

 

 

 

A 110 story building comes down, evidence is destroyed, you can't explain that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s

[mudslag]

3 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Okay.

 

At what point would you consider it enough? Consider that these people are supposed to be experts and probably know a little bit more about what they are doing than you think you do.

 

 

He can't provide a number but his armchair spidey sense tells him it's not enough.

[monkeylove]

On 3/8/2016 at 11:53 AM, Emn1ty said:

 This all operates under the assumption that these pieces weren't analyzed thoroughly and that somehow storing them for longer than they were stored would have been helpful in any way. How would keeping the evidence longer change things? How would more experts examining them have changed things? Can you demonstrate any other reasons to do these things other than a lack of trust in the original investigation of these items?

It seems odd to me that you somehow think that just because the evidence wasn't kept for your arbitrarily selected period of time (evidence that probably wasn't easy or even cheap to store for long periods of time in the first place) that it's subject to suspicion.

The problem here, with this line of thought, is that you have declared the evidence at present insufficient and there's no real way to prove to you that it is sufficient because you've already made up your mind that it's not, regardless of what "evidence" is provided. This is why conspiracy theories are worthless, because they are based entirely on rationalization and narrative, not evidence. In fact, a lack of evidence generally propels them further into their own narratives.

This is on the same level as geo-engineering, aliens, etc. No matter what you provide to the contrary, the narrative has already accounted for that. It's an impenetrable wall of contingency theories that address every possible angle.

You have to read my messages carefully: the problem isn't that 150 pieces were not analyzed thoroughly. It's that only 150 pieces that were analyzed, with much of the debris analyzed by one group in less than two months before being destroyed. I don't see any references to the cost of storage as the main reason for destroying the evidence.

 

The only way to determine whether or not the evidence is sufficient is to compare it to what was destroyed. That was no longer possible because much of it was destroyed in less than two months.

 

Finally, this is not "on the same level as geo-engineering" but based on common sense: you don't destroy evidence for any crime scene, especially one of such magnitude.

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/8/2016 at 0:15 PM, mudslag said:

 

Unless you can show us that you are in fact an expert on the matters then yes you're making an "armchair analysis". You're denying the work of others but ignoring to show your own work as to why other's are wrong. Saying your view is common sense based is not a supported view. Show with actual work why the number of pieces used is inadequate to support the base view, then you can start talking about others being wrong. Til then your you're offering nothing more then an armchair analysis. 

 

 

FYI from the very link you posted on page 4....

 

 

And yes people have a clue, you just don't like where the clues lead so you're in denial of what's presented. 

 

The only way to find out whether or not the little physical evidence gathered is sufficient is to compare it with what was not considered. That requires no expertise but common sense!

 

Recall how this argument started. First, someone claimed that it was not true that much of the evidence was destroyed. But when otherwise was shown, we now shift to the argument that the little evidence gathered was good enough.

 

It's one excuse after another.

 

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/8/2016 at 3:29 PM, HawkMan said:

Videos and simulations tell you more than twisted steel can, and they only needed a very smll cross section of steel to tell them everything, namely the steel from the floors the plane crashed. they just needed to see if the steel had been heated enough to change characteristic and become soft. 

 

seriously.... 

 

fisix be hard

Completely the opposite! That's why crime scenes, investigation of fires and of air crashes involve gathering as much physical evidence as possible. That's not what happened in this case.

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/8/2016 at 3:44 PM, HawkMan said:

So you argue that you're not an "armchair analyst" by describing the very defintion of armchair analysis. This is physics, not common sense, common sense doesn't apply here. 

 

Also you're misrepresenting what happened. They looked through the wreckage looking at all the structural steel to find the important pieces they needed that would tell them what happened. Then they analyzed that, since the steel above and below would be less than useless to them, thoguh I'm sure they had a few pieces from there to for comparison and as control. since you know, science and physics.  It's what these people do, and they know a damn lot more about it than anyone on this forum. 

 

 

 

you're thinking of iron. 

Besides that, like many have pointed out, it doesn't need to melt, the warmer a material gets including metal the softer it gets. long before melting. the steel didnt't melt it merely got to soft to support the weight. This was made possible by the fact that the steel in the building didn't have the protective "foam" that's supposed to insulate it against fire and the fact it was effing jet fuel.

 

as far as how hot it got in there. First this was a hollow skyscraper. that means it has a central shaft designed to spread heat and air. incidentall in a fire as catastropic as this it will also work in another way. It makes an extremely effective natural convexion furnace. The Fire heats the air, the hot air races, sucking up new fresh air fro the bottom through the built in wents at the bottom of the tower, this causes the fire to burn hotter, making more air frise faster, pulling in more fresh air. and voila. hellishly hot furnace that can melt steel. 

 

If you understand fire, furnace and convexion, it's not a hard concept to understand and see how hot this gets. just like a fan into a coal fire makes steel red hot and pliable 

Point out the report which documents all of the pieces gathered, why only around 150 were selected from that, and why the rest were destroyed.

 

[monkeylove]

16 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Okay.

 

At what point would you consider it enough? Also take into consideration that these people are supposed to be experts and probably know a little bit more about what they are doing than you think you do.

A report that documents the total number of pieces examined, why only 150 were chosen would be helpful, and why the rest had to be sold off as scrap would be useful.

 

[trag3dy]

6 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

Completely the opposite! That's why crime scenes, investigation of fires and of air crashes involve gathering as much physical evidence as possible. That's not what happened in this case.

 

Okay. Here is the problem. You assume from the get go that it was a crime scene and thus you need evidence to support your theory.

 

What if, and bear with me here because it might sound crazy, but what if it wasn't actually a crime scene and instead a terrorist attack? The people doing the investigation were looking at evidence for a terrorist attack and not an attack made by it's own government. It sounds crazy, I know, but I think I'm on to something here.

[monkeylove]

15 minutes ago, mudslag said:

 

 

A 110 story building comes down, evidence is destroyed, you can't explain that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s

It can be explained by examining as much evidence as possible.

 

 

[mudslag]

Just now, monkeylove said:

The only way to find out whether or not the little physical evidence gathered is sufficient is to compare it with what was not considered. That requires no expertise but common sense!

 

Your comment doesn't make sense, so I guess that makes sense why you're confused. You're not an expert and you've yet to show why they are wrong. You just keep expressing they are wrong without supporting your claim. You want to keep saying the experts are wrong, prove it. Stating something lacks common sense doesn't even begin to support your view. 

 

 

Recall how this argument started. First, someone claimed that it was not true that much of the evidence was destroyed. But when otherwise was shown, we now shift to the argument that the little evidence gathered was good enough.

 

It's one excuse after another.

 

You're the one making the argument that the evidence gathered was not enough, you're the one that has yet to show that to be true. That puts it on your to back it up, something you still haven't done.